| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 72492 | 2006-09-14 22:41:00 | ihug doing dodgy stuff? | Buff_K (691) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 484861 | 2006-09-19 07:28:00 | ya man. im so sick of it.Same. D*mn are the people living in hell using Ihug for P2P? I'm sure they've done somethin to out ports. Very sure. Can't wait to change internet soon. My downloads will get hold for a long time!!! How annoying.:annoyed: |
PedalSlammer (8511) | ||
| 484862 | 2006-09-19 12:55:00 | yeah well I was dead certain too but having downloaded the test torrent on this thread I'm not so sure. Im still sceptical but the Linux or whatever it was ISO I managed a staggering 200KB/s! thats well and truelly the highest speed ive had on Ihug. It wasnt steady, my speeds are always up and down with a huge varience and I often get patches where nothings happening whatsoever. So I don't know what to think now. Everything else is still pathetic. I'll need to try more private trackers. Still waiting for a new router though, hoping that will make a difference, if only to surfing while using bit torrent. |
Buff_K (691) | ||
| 484863 | 2006-09-19 13:24:00 | i hope theyre not under M PAA influence | gum digger (6100) | ||
| 484864 | 2006-09-20 03:13:00 | Has anyone who has the issue raised it directly with Ihug and presented them the varying evidence? What have Ihug said? | Cptn Hotshot (3904) | ||
| 484865 | 2006-09-20 07:12:00 | Has anyone who has the issue raised it directly with Ihug and presented them the varying evidence? What have Ihug said? How can we have evidence? Same area using same torrent network to download same file and different ISP provided in the area only can proof it, right? | PedalSlammer (8511) | ||
| 484866 | 2006-09-20 08:06:00 | Of course the option would be that an ISP could be set up to serve only P2P customers. No port shaping would occur. You would all have exactly what you want, but you would also have to pay for all of what you get. P2P users would then be unwilling or unable to afford the charges, in a genuine user pays environment, which is presently likely heavily subsidised by non P2P users. But on the other side, the non P2P providing ISP's would have much lower ISP costs for their remaining customers. Everyone would be happy? - or would P2P users still be unhappy? |
godfather (25) | ||
| 484867 | 2006-09-21 06:18:00 | Of course the option would be that an ISP could be set up to serve only P2P customers. No port shaping would occur. You would all have exactly what you want, but you would also have to pay for all of what you get. P2P users would then be unwilling or unable to afford the charges, in a genuine user pays environment, which is presently likely heavily subsidised by non P2P users. But on the other side, the non P2P providing ISP's would have much lower ISP costs for their remaining customers. Everyone would be happy? - or would P2P users still be unhappy? :rolleyes: According to your text above, it is not only the P2P users facing slowness of the Ihug internet BUT the downloads are slow as well. I just downloaded the new AOE III patch for my AOE and it is just downloading 110kbps by right should be above 300kbps. Happy now? NO. The web page loading haved slowed down as well, even though I have plenty of internet allowance not really used. I have only used up 3GB at the moment, and an allowance of 30GB. That's less right? And are customers happy to pay for such a slow speed internet while others ISP are providing at better speed with the same price? What do you think? |
PedalSlammer (8511) | ||
| 484868 | 2006-09-21 07:10:00 | My download speeds are just fine thanks at about 3.3 Mbps (400+ kBps) But I do not use P2P. You are quoting 110 kbps, which is just over twice dial-up at 13 kBps? Do you mean 110 kBps, which is a speed of 880 kbps? Unless you get your bits and Bytes sorted, its all a bit confusing. b=bit B=Byte |
godfather (25) | ||
| 484869 | 2006-09-21 07:19:00 | My download speeds are just fine thanks at about 3.3 Mbps (400+ kBps) But I do not use P2P. You are quoting 110 kbps, which is just over twice dial-up at 13 kBps? Do you mean 110 kBps, which is a speed of 880 kbps? Unless you get your bits and Bytes sorted, its all a bit confusing. b=bit B=Byte No, my normal file downloading speed is [3.5mbps plan]300kbps+ from HP web files but not AOE III patch. It is only 110kbps downloading speed for AOE III patch. Others? 250kbps+ downloading with average speed, now days Ihug internet is getting slower. It can't even achieve 250kbps+ download speed anymore. |
PedalSlammer (8511) | ||
| 484870 | 2006-09-21 08:21:00 | You are still not differentiating B and b, so your speed is still unknown. Is your "110kbps" actually 110 kBps? Because 110kbps is only 13.7 kBps If you don't understand the difference between a kb and a kB just say, as I would agree that while 13.7 kBps is poor, but 110 kBps is still quite good at near to 1Mbps. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||